Summary: Imposition of cost in frivolous litigation.

Summary: Held: (i) We are surprised if the doctor examined the lady at 8:00 a.m. the time when the report was not yet made then how he endorsed the injury sheet which was prepared at 08:20 a.m. and the report was made at 08:10 a.m. Again it is astonishing that the doctor did not mention as to whether the complainant was fully conscious, capable to talk and oriented in time and space, so much so, her blood pressure and pulse rate was not recorded.(ii) We cannot ignore this aspect of the case, that when the report was made in the hospital and the doctor was available what prevented PW-13 to request the doctor for a certificate to ascertain as to whether the injured was capable to talk or not. PW-13 did not take the pains to call for the doctor so that the report of the complainant could be taken in his presence and even after the report was made no endorsement of the doctor was requested on the murasila.(iii) The cumulative effect of what is stated above, leads us nowhere but to hold that the injured was brought to the hospital by the co-villagers and the initial investigation was conducted prior to the report and it was on arrival of some interested person that the matter was shown reported by the complainant and the appellant was charged.(iv) The Investigating Officer was examined on this particular aspect of the case, but he could not explain that why the empties were received much later than the garments and even he could not explain that where these empties were lying.

Summary: Sections of law; Article 199 of the Constitution.Relief Package for written-off loans(a) Text of relief package should be interpreted liberally so as to make it available to all the people for whose benefits such package is announced by the government.

Summary: The case revolved around a show cause notice issued by the Federal Board of Revenue in Pakistan to Van Oord Dredging and Marine Contractors B.V., a company based in the Netherlands, regarding its tax exemption claim under the Double Taxation Treaty between Pakistan and the Netherlands. The notice was issued based on the results of audit proceedings.The petitioner challenged the notice, claiming that it should not be considered a permanent establishment in Pakistan under the treaty, and that the revenue authority did not properly understand the facts of its presence in Pakistan.The respondents argued that the audit proceedings had revealed information that justified the issuance of the notice, and they did not dispute the applicability of the treaty. They also cited legal precedent stating that show cause notices are not typically justiciable in writ jurisdiction.The court considered the arguments and legal precedents and emphasized that a show cause notice is a preliminary step in a legal process meant to provide an alleged defaulter with a chance to respond before any adverse action is taken. It stated that a show cause notice could only be challenged in exceptional circumstances such as lack of jurisdiction, abuse of process, or coram non judice (lack of authority to try a case). The court also stressed that the right to a fair trial is a fundamental constitutional right.In this case, the court found that there was no evident lack of jurisdiction, abuse of process, or mala fide intent in the issuance of the notice. It noted that the determination of factual controversies is generally not suitable for resolution in writ jurisdiction. Therefore, the court concluded that the show cause notice should proceed through the designated forum as per the notice's provisions. The petitioner was directed to present its case there, and the respondents were instructed to conduct the proceedings and issue a reasoned decision. If the petitioner remained dissatisfied, they could challenge the findings in the appropriate jurisdiction as per the Income Tax Ordinance 2001.In summary, the High Court ruled that the show cause notice in question should not be interfered with in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction, and the petitioner should pursue its case through the designated forum provided by the notice.

Summary: [CONSTITUTION OF PAKISTAN, 1973 (Petition hit by laches )] we are of the considered view that the instant petition falls within the doctrine of laches as the petitioner filed the instant petition in November 2011 whereas the alleged cause of action accrued to her in June 2008 when her late husband availed the benefits of VSS, i.e. approximately 04 years before the filing of the instant petition.

Summary: [Sentence Upheld-evidence and statements of the witnesses, the Supreme Court found that the witnesses' testimonies were consistent and credible] The case involves the murder of Mehboob Ali, who was shot dead in his brother's house on 21st June 2015. The petitioner, Muhammad Ashraf, was accused alongside several others for the murder. They were alleged to have committed the crime due to a previous dispute.During the trial, the prosecution presented witness testimonies, including Mst. Naz Malik, Abdul Fatah, and Abdul Karim, who all pointed to the petitioner as one of the assailants involved in the murder. The petitioner claimed that the case against him was fabricated, as no recovery was made from him during his physical remand.After examining the evidence and statements of the witnesses, the Supreme Court found that the witnesses' testimonies were consistent and credible. The court rejected the petitioner's claim of mistaken identity and upheld the judgment of the High Court, which had sentenced the petitioner to life imprisonment and seven years of rigorous imprisonment, along with compensation and a fine.

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- -S. 177-Ordinary place of inquiry and trial-Expression 'be inquired in and tried by'-Scope-Prosecution assailed order passed by trial court whereby the case, on the point of jurisdiction raised by accused, was transferred to another district-Held; if a person committed a crime at place X and was arrested by the police station in place Y, the FIR was also lodged at place Y, he would still be tried by the Court having local jurisdiction over place X as the wording of the legislature while handing down S.177, Cr.P.C., was very clear-No exceptions were provided to the above that would be applicable in the present case-Use of the expression "be inquired in and tried by"further provided no exceptions to the case-Had the legislature planned to provide any exceptions or not made the section mandatory, the word"may" would have been used, which was not the case-Crime was committed in district 'K', wherefrom the accused was arrested as well-Regardless of the place where the FIR was lodged, it would not have any consequence upon the Court where the case would be tried or have any other effect-Decision taken by Trial Court in transferring the case and record to the Court having proper jurisdiction was appropriate and did not suffer from any infirmity, therefore, did not call for interference-Revision application was dismissed. Respondents in person.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -S. 302(b)-Qatl-i-amd-Reappraisal of evidence-Delay in lodging of FIR explained-Matter was reported to police about four days after the occurrence, however such delay had been explained by the complainant in the FIR and before the Trial Court-In the FIR which was registered on the written application of complainant, it was mentioned that after his son went missing, the complainant and others started searching him and in that search, they also went to the accused and asked from him about the whereabouts of the deceased-In his cross examination, the complainant stated that he orally informed Moharrar of police station that his son was missing on the next day of occurrence and the said Moharrar told him that police would search his missing son-Deceased was the only son of complainant and was aged 12/13 years, therefore, it was quite natural for a father to put his best efforts in searching his missing son before reporting the matter to the police particularly when he had no suspicion against anyone-In the circumstances, delay in reporting the matter to police was not fatal to the prosecution-Conviction of accused under S. 302(b), P.P.C. was maintained. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -S. 302(b)-Qatl-i-amd-Reappraisal of evidence-Extra-judicial confession of accused corroborated by medical evidence-Accused had allegedly made an extra judicial confession before the complainant and another prosecution witness-While appearing before the Trial Court, the complainant and said witness reiterated the contents of FIR with full confidence; they explained in detail how they along with other witnesses went to the accused and asked him about whereabouts of deceased; how the complainant told the accused regarding initiation of legal proceedings if he did not disclose the whereabouts of deceased; how the accused disclosed before them that he took deceased to a house with intention to commit sodomy and on his failure to do the unnatural act, he tied up and strangulated the deceased with an iron wire and concealed his body in an iron box-Complainant and the other witness of extra judicial confession also stated that they apprehended the accused and proceeded towards the police station-Despite lengthy cross examination, the defence was not able to elicit anything from these witnesses regarding false implication of accused in the case-Autopsy report of deceased mentioned contusion mark all around the neck of deceased, and a contusion marks around the wrists-Such observations of the doctor supplemented the extra judicial confession of accused that he tied up and strangulated the deceased with an iron wire-Furthermore three swabs were taken from the anal region of deceased and sent to the Chemical Examiner, who opined that the said swabs were stained with semen-On disclosure of accused before police, dead body of deceased was recovered from a vacant house-Accused also got recovered the keys of said house, a shirt, bag, books and a register belonging to the deceased-All said circumstances outweighed the claim of accused that he had been falsely implicated in the case-Prosecution had been successful in proving its case against the accused, therefore, his conviction under S. 302(b), P.P.C. was maintained. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -S. 302(b)- Qatl-i-amd-Reappraisal of evidence-Sentence, reduction in-Death sentence reduced to imprisonment for life-Case based on circumstantial evidence only-No direct evidence was available against the accused and the prosecution case hinged upon circumstantial evidence-Conviction of accused under S. 302(b), P.P.C. did not call for any interference, but considering the overall circumstances of the case, and to meet the ends of justice, the death sentence awarded to accused and maintained by the High Court was converted to sentence of imprisonment for life-Appeal was partly allowed. Amjad Rafiq, Additional P.G. Punjab for the State.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending